[Simon]

Originally Posted by McFarmer

Check out the 'Kingdom of Heaven' trailer, it has a few sections with very fast cuts. My 1.33GHz PowerBook with a 5400rpm drive manages about 10-12fps on that passage. And I cannot believe a 1.67GHz PowerBook is twice as fast to play this passage in 24fps.

Worked fine. 24fps. The attached image was taken (check the time stamp for yourself if you don't believe me) where there are all these fast cuts in the movie clip. 24fps at its best. I have no idea where the problem is. Again, this is on my G4 PowerBook (see sig). No G5 necessary.

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by Simon

I guess Apple must be talking about HD = 1080i and not about H.264 in general. 720p worked just fine on my 1.67GHz G4.

Hmm, are you sure you're not dropping frames during a lot of motion? If not, I'd say you're the only one, even with a 1.67 (I think Apple is definitely talking about 720p). Most people even with a 1.6 G5 are still saying they are dropping frames. O' course, these clips aren't really 720p, they are truncated to what 554 vertical lines? So that would make them easier to playback than the full 720. Although, on the other hand, Apple is known to be conservative with specs, so maybe those requirements have a built in buffer to make sure a 1.8 G5 is failproof.

I think I'm gonna try to hit up the Apple Store and get some numbers. I'll post 'em here when I get 'em. Hopefully, they'll have some new iMacs (now THOSE actually did get a nice update )

[Simon]

Well, I tried what people here suggested, I reported on what I saw and I posted some screen shots. Again just to be clear: This is on a 1.67 GHz 15" rev C, 1GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, stock 80GB 5400rpm HD, clean 10.4.0. It works just fine. If you aren't getting this playback quality with an identical PowerBook, I suggest you get rid of any haxies or other crap that's sucking up cycles. On this PowerBook, the 720p clips were playing just fine.

[That said, anybody who claims this PowerBook can't do it, is full of **** IMHO.]

[McFarmer]

Originally Posted by Simon

I guess Apple must be talking about HD = 1080i and not about H.264 in general. 720p worked just fine on my 1.67GHz G4.

Which is problematic enough that Apple has no portable offering which can make full use of QuickTime 7...

But I'd be interested in your frame rates. Have you downloaded and tried the Kingdom of Heaven trailer? from 0:25 to 0:50 my frame rate drops to 12fps, 15 at best. It really dips around 0:32. Are you getting a solid 24fps throughout the whole passage, never dropping below 24fps?
That would be good.

And are you on Tiger or Panther?

[Simon]

see my above post

[Simon]

I've just taken another Kingdom of Heaven trailer shot just for you.
No frame dropping here. 24fps nice and clear.



What more may I do to shut the Apple bashers up? j/k

[Simon]

BTW, what I like even more about this is that it not only shows 24fps while playing back, but it continues to do so as I take the screen grab - as my shots prove.

Would anybody with a 5.6lb PC notebook care to see if he can keep up with that? No? Com'on! Chicken?

Next challenge please.

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by Simon

BTW, what I like even more about this is that it not only shows 24fps while playing back, but it continues to do so as I take the screen grab - as my shots prove.

Would anybody with a 5.6lb PC notebook care to see if he can keep up with that? No? Com'on! Chicken?

Next challenge please.

Heh, well I think the comparison in terms of speed is gonna get won by the thin & light PC hands down. (Of course, maybe you are really trying to argue a 2 GHz P-M is slower than a 1.67 G4...)

Still, if you check the link Eug posted and Apple's own spec sheet, it doesn't seem as though any Powerbook should be able to playback 720p. So, either the 544p (which this is) isn't as taxing or Apple overestimated the reqs. Still, you are the only one I've seen report flawless playback, so it could be that: A) you're cherry picking screenshots or B) your PowerBook is an anomaly (just like anything, this sort of thing would have a gaussian distribution).

But you're being quite dismissive of the fact that all outside evidence points contrary to your own results. And that is somewhat close-minded.

I'll do a rundown on all the hardware and see what I find.

[Simon]

I take screen shots of the scenes people ask me to and post them here as evidence. I think that's open minded enough.

What I dislike is Apple-bashing when evidence indicates they are delivering more than they promised. And again, show me the screen shots I showed you, but taken on a $2500 5.6lb PC notebook. I don't care what P-M there are, I want to see this 720p/H.264 performance delivered by a package as light and as sleek as Apple's. Up to now, nada.

[McFarmer]

Originally Posted by Simon

I've just taken another Kingdom of Heaven trailer shot just for you.

Thanks! That is great then.

So maybe I'm getting poor frame rates because I installed Tiger on top of Panther. (I never had any haxies installed, though).

Or simply because the 64MB GeForce FX Go5200 is anemic... ;-)

It would be great if Apple could produce a decent 12" PowerBook. With built-to-order options for higher screen resolutions and better GPUs. But I suspect the miniaturisation required is beyond Apple's engineering capability... Or their marketing department would not dare to offer a high-end 12" PowerBook costing as much if not more than a fully-featured 17" PowerBook.

Anyway, thanks Simon.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by McFarmer

Thanks! That is great then.

I think it's great too.

So maybe I'm getting poor frame rates because I installed Tiger on top of Panther. (I never had any haxies installed, though).

I installed 10.4 on top of 10.3.9 on another 1.67GHz PowerBook and get the same results.

Or simply because the 64MB GeForce FX Go5200 is anemic... ;-)

I think it's rather this. That's why I dumped my old 12" and went for the 15". I prefer the 12" form factor, but the 15" offers so much more performance.

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by Simon

I take screen shots of the scenes people ask me to and post them here as evidence. I think that's open minded enough.

What I dislike is Apple-bashing when evidence indicates they are delivering more than they promised. And again, show me the screen shots I showed you, but taken on a $2500 5.6lb PC notebook. I don't care what P-M there are, I want to see this delivered by a package as light and as sleek as Apple's. Up to now, nada.

Dude, I've posted several PC notebooks that would run circles around the PowerBook and are of comparable size and price. I'm not going to rehash all that. Sheesh.

Look, I'm an Apple fan as well, but I am open to the realities of the market. And again ALL evidence, save yours, claims they are not delivering, so you need to take a step back from the soapbox and wait for more info to come in. Because right now, you sound like zealot.

[McFarmer]

Originally Posted by Simon

That's why I dumped my old 12" and went for the 15". I prefer the 12" form factor, but the 15" offers so much more performance.

Well, I went the other way. I had 14" and 15" PowerBooks ever since the day of the original Wallstreet (292MHz with 83.3MHz bus).

I was just sick of their size and weight. If you carry it around every day commuting size does matter. The 12" is sooo much better than my previous TiBook.

But the performance does suck a bit. And the 1024x768 internal screen resolution sucks a lot to be honest. Without my external 23" CInema Display I would not be happy with the 12" at all.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

Look, I'm an Apple fan as well, but I am open to the realities of the market. And again ALL evidence, save yours, claims they are not delivering, so you need to take a step back from the soapbox and wait for more info to come in. Because right now, you sound like zealot.

I look like a zealot? My screen shots are all faked? Right.

Man, you sound desperate. Don't forget, I'm the one delivering hard evidence here. AFAIC, you're just PC fanboying until I see your screen shots.

Where's that 5.6lb PC notebook doing screen grabs of the KoH trailer running at 24fps?

[Simon]

sorry, dp.

[Simon]

Before this gets out of hand, let me try to summarize.
- there was a claim that the PowerBook was not up to 720p snuff
- there was a claim that some cheap, thin, light, sexy, whatever PC notebook could do it much better
- I showed a screen grab of my 24fps trailer
- I was asked if it was also showing 24fps at the position xyz:uvw of the KoH trailer
- I supplied screen shots to show that I was also getting 24fps at that location of the KoH trailer

I am not saying PC notebooks are slow or that they can't do H.264 at all. I am asking for evidence. I am not saying any Mac can get 24fps on this trailer with the fast cuts. I am not saying you can't put load on a PowerBook to get it to drop frames on this trailer either.

I am merely pointing out the the PowerBook is delivering. And I am supplying evidence for my claim. And frankly, up to now, I don't see much evidence posted by anybody else. So, please, tell me what more I could test, but don't claim I'm lying just because the evidence points out something you don't want to see. Fair enough, isn't it?

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Simon

Worked fine. 24fps. The attached image was taken (check the time stamp for yourself if you don't believe me) where there are all these fast cuts in the movie clip. 24fps at its best. I have no idea where the problem is. Again, this is on my G4 PowerBook (see sig). No G5 necessary.

Um, Simon, doesn't that resolution say 1280x544? Aren't you cheating just a little bit?

[urrl78]

Logically, if my old but well maintained 64 VRAM Powerbook can average 18.4 FPS and cruise over a decent length of Serenity without flicker, I see no reason why Simons 128 MB VRAM 17" could not keep up 24 FPS indefinitely. Nevertheless I can easily walk across the street on my lunchbreak and try a brand new 128 VRAM 17" Powerbook if there is one on display in the store. That should settle the question here. I have less than 1 hour before lunchtime...The folks there should have something to say about it also.

[osxisfun]

and let's drop the whole... oh HD QT dropped to 15 fps on a really fast camera pan there for my $2300 (NOT $3000) laptop is worthless.

Its just not true. Read my posts. What we have here is some qt tech that is slightly ahead of current current PB tech (somehwat. maybe. possibly.)

Again I have to ask. What should apple done?

Halt all sales until Sernentiy plays @ 50fps on a mini?!

[Simon]

Originally Posted by f1000

Um, Simon, doesn't that resolution say 1280x544? Aren't you cheating just a little bit?

I says so indeed. But, how should I be cheating? It's the file I was asked to look at. It's running at 24fps where the fast cuts happen. It's a legit screen shot.

However, if you were trying to ask me why the 544 pixel file is called 720p - the answer is: no idea.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by urrl78

Logically, if my old but well maintained 64 VRAM Powerbook can average 18.4 FPS and cruise over a decent length of Serenity without flicker, I see no reason why Simons 128 MB VRAM 17" could not keep up 24 FPS indefinitely. Nevertheless I can easily walk across the street on my lunchbreak and try a brand new 128 VRAM 17" Powerbook if there is one on display in the store. That should settle the question here. I have less than 1 hour before lunchtime...The folks there should have something to say about it also.

Just for the record, I have the 15" 1.67GHz with 128MB VRAM, not the 17".

And btw, I'm running it with a 1600x1200 Samsung TFT screen and not the internal screen, but I doubt that has any influence.

[urrl78]

The place that sold Apple products across the street went out of business. Oh well...

[DylanG]

Originally Posted by DylanG

How do the heat and power consumption compare to the Mobility 9700? Do you know that it wouldn't produce a hotter machine with less battery life?

Originally Posted by hakstooy

Did you actually read a write up? Cause I'm getting kind of annoyed by people claiming this or discrediting that without taking a minute to check it out.

And I get annoyed when people don't read what I write. Asking a question isn't making a claim.

Yes, I did look around before I posted and I couldn't find the answer. That's why I asked if you knew. Sure, I found the same articles comparing the X700 to the X800 but that's not the relevant question. I'd like to know how the X700 compares to the 9700. I don't know the answer and based on your reply I'd say that you don't either. So how can you say it would be "perfect"?

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by Simon

Before this gets out of hand, let me try to summarize.
- there was a claim that the PowerBook was not up to 720p snuff

And by all sources, other than you, this has been confirmed. And your source isn't even 720p, its really 544p, but that is getting a little nit-picky.

- there was a claim that some cheap, thin, light, sexy, whatever PC notebook could do it much better

This is an ironclad argument my man. No, I don't have screenshots but that's because I don't own one. Need me to run to Best Buy and prove what every comparison available on the web already shows?

It is a given that mobile PC hardware is faster than Apples right now. Period. If you wanna debate the user costs to such speed (heat, power-consumption, etc.) then you have a valid argument, but there is no doubt they are faster.

- I showed a screen grab of my 24fps trailer
- I was asked if it was also showing 24fps at the position xyz:uvw of the KoH trailer
- I supplied screen shots to show that I was also getting 24fps at that location of the KoH trailer

And I appreciate it, and it is really heartening to see it, but you are still ignoring that you are the ONLY ONE REPORTING IT SO FAR!! People such as Eug Wanker, who I have seen on many forums and consider one heck of an informed source on such matters, agree with the assessment they are not up to snuff. So far as the reports verify this, except you. You are an anomaly so far, NOT THE RULE. But you need to stop acting like your results are the end-all of this investigation. You ain't no H.264 messiah. There is nothing more you can do besides say your part and wait for others to report their results. Is that really that hard to understand. Jeez.

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by DylanG

And I get annoyed when people don't read what I write. Asking a question isn't making a claim.

Touche. Apologies, I misinterpreted your question. I took it as a sardonic reply to my posting, not a geniune question.

No I don't have raw power-consumption numbers, but the X700 is the new low-power high-end GPU, the 9700's replacement. Considering ATI built them both, and placed them in the same category, I'd figure their power-reqs to be similar. And considering that they are going in laptops of the same form factor as the PowerBook, laptops whose other internals are hotter, (CPU,etc.) and whose battery life is comparable, I'd wager they are in the same ballpark. But that's just inference.

They are built specifically for the platform category of the PowerBook (thin & light), so I don't get why there is any real question as to their applicability really.

They also utilize PowerPlay 5.0, which is a power-saving throttling feature (9700 doesn't have it), which supposedly reduces consumption by 30%.

But if you require power numbers for convincing you, then, well sorry, I don't have them.

---

Edit: Did find this, which shows that a system with an X700 under full load has about twice the consumption as an idle one, which is right in line with a PowerBook (4 hours doing nothing, 2 hours oh high activity...if you're lucky). So I'd say that's fairly informative.

Oh, and did I mention that it is TWICE as fast as a 9700. TWICE!!!

[Stratus Fear]

They also utilize PowerPlay 5.0, which is a power-saving throttling feature (9700 doesn't have it), which supposedly reduces consumption by 30%.

That's not true; the 9700 does support PowerPlay.

http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/2...n_9700-11.html

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

That's not true; the 9700 does support PowerPlay.

http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/2...n_9700-11.html

Yes, but not PowerPlay 5 . PowerPlay 4, which it does have, is basically useless. It only reduces consumption by like 9% and it kills performance vs. 30% and only much less reduced performance for 5.

Way to zero in on the heart of the post though. Very helpful.

[urrl78]

Sorry guys but I am totally new to HD on laptops. I have the 17" Powerbook as mentioned but I also have a little Sony Vaio T250 with a 10.6" screen. After mentioning how QT 7 is available for Macs and how sweet it looks on my Powerbook a guy on the Sony forum pointed me to this link:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...tshowcase.aspx

I downloaded Terminator 2 trailer (720p) and the thing runs like butter, using Windows Media Player 10, on my 1.2 Ghz T250, and this is a laptop with the much ragged on shared memory and a 1.8" "iPOD" 60 gig 4200 RPM HD. I am downloading another trailer at 1080p as I write this to see how that runs. I'm confused; How did the Terminator trailer play so flawlessly at 720p?

Update: Just ran "The Rules of Attraction" at 1080p and, well, it seems to run at least as good as Serenity did on my 17" at 720p...what is going on guys??? I'm confused even more. I mean, this is shared memory for crying out loud...and it runs 1080p???

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

Yes, but not PowerPlay 5 . PowerPlay 4, which it does have, is basically useless. It only reduces consumption by like 9% and it kills performance vs. 30% and only much less reduced performance for 5.

Way to zero in on the heart of the post though. Very helpful.

The 9700 and older model mobility chips don't use much energy to begin with. I wouldn't doubt that the reason for PowerPlay 5 offering much better energy savings is simply because it is more required on the 8 pipeline mobile designs. It was shown that they use significantly more juice when the X800 based 9800 Mobility was put out into the market. AFAIK, the 9700 all the way back to the original 7000 level Radeon Mobility still have better battery life. All the way back to the 7000 was when the graphics chip, at idle, used less than a watt, and no more than around 4 at load, IIRC. Even the 9700 doesn't have high power requirements. The 9800 did. Does the X700?

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by urrl78

Sorry guys but I am totally new to HD on laptops. I have the 17" Powerbook as mentioned but I also have a little Sony Vaio T250 with a 10.6" screen. After mentioning how QT 7 is available for Macs and how sweet it looks on my Powerbook a guy on the Sony forum pointed me to this link:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...tshowcase.aspx

I downloaded Terminator 2 trailer (720p) and the thing runs like butter, using Windows Media Player 10, on my 1.2 Ghz T250, and this is a laptop with the much ragged on shared memory and a 1.8" "iPOD" 60 gig 4200 RPM HD. I am downloading another trailer at 1080p as I write this to see how that runs. I'm confused; How did the Terminator trailer play so flawlessly at 720p?

Update: Just ran "The Rules of Attraction" at 1080p and, well, it seems to run at least as good as Serenity did on my 17" at 720p...what is going on guys??? I'm confused even more. I mean, this is shared memory for crying out loud...and it runs 1080p???

The WMV9 codec's CPU requirements are far lower than H.264.

[urrl78]

Does this mean lower resolution in the WMV9/10 clips?

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by urrl78

Does this mean lower resolution in the WMV9/10 clips?

No, the resolution should be just as good, but the WMV9 codecs don't compress as well, so their computational requirements are less, so in general, WMV9 HD should work better on a PC than H.264 HD on a Mac. H.264 is a little ahead of its time just yet.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

I says so indeed. But, how should I be cheating? It's the file I was asked to look at. It's running at 24fps where the fast cuts happen. It's a legit screen shot.

However, if you were trying to ask me why the 544 pixel file is called 720p - the answer is: no idea.

True 16:9 HD is generally 1280x720 (720p) or 1920x1080 (1080p or i). However, a lot of movies wouldn't fit properly into 1280x720. So the two options are:

1) Make it 1280x720, but with black bars at the top and bottom. <-- Waste of bandwidth

2) Make it 1280, and delete the unnecessary space at the top and bottom. In this case it ends up being 1280x544, since it's a 2:35:1 movie.

Everyone chooses option #2 these days, for obvious reasons. It's not true 720p, and there's no 720 anywhere in the resolution, but it's still called that.

True 720p (1280x720) is harder to decode than 1280x544. My Cube 1.7 can decode 1280x544 at 12 fps, but starts to choke on 1280x720. That little bit extra pushes it over the edge I guess.

BTW, it's not really 544p either, since 544p would be more like 967x544 (for a 16:9 ratio).

[bimmerphile]

My 12" 1.5GHz handles it like a champ.

[Scooterboy]

OK, I'm still only getting between 12 and 16 fps on these 720p trailers. Serenity, Kingdom of Heaven, 12 - 16 fps. But, I'm still on Panther. Will Tiger double my fps playing QT7 720p?

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Even the 9700 doesn't have high power requirements. The 9800 did. Does the X700?

No, I don't know the exact numbers but the X700 is the replacement for the 9700 so it is aimed for the same low-power application. Throwing a 9800 into the mix here is irrelevant, it is a completely different beast.

Seriously, how do you not get that the replacement is in the same vein as its predecessor, just more refined and thus able to do more with the same resources? ie: 7448 to 7447.

The example I cited shows a similar idle vs. driven power consumption ratio as the current PowerBook in a thin & light PC notebook, which strongly suggests a similar power draw. Which would make perfect sense when you think of the fact the x7xx models are a series.

PowerPlay's increased effectiveness could also potentially result from development, ya think?

If I wanted to talk pure mobile speed I would be using the X800 as my example, but it is not a fair comparison because it is not designed for the segment the PowerBook is in.

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by Scooterboy

OK, I'm still only getting between 12 and 16 fps on these 720p trailers. Serenity, Kingdom of Heaven, 12 - 16 fps. But, I'm still on Panther. Will Tiger double my fps playing QT7 720p?

I highly doubt it. I think your results are far more typical than Simon's.

My 12" 1.33 runs a little slower than that on Tiger.

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by bimmerphile

My 12" 1.5GHz handles it like a champ.

Fps would be a more useful quantification than "like a champ."

Hit "Command-I" when the file is playing and note the fps.

---

So does anyone know if there is a player for OS-X that can play WMV9 HD files? Someone needs to try out those and see how they play.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

No, I don't know the exact numbers but the X700 is the replacement for the 9700 so it is aimed for the same low-power application. Throwing a 9800 into the mix here is irrelevant, it is a completely different beast.

Seriously, how do you not get that the replacement is in the same vein as its predecessor, just more refined and thus able to do more with the same resources? ie: 7448 to 7447.

The example I cited shows a similar idle vs. driven power consumption ratio as the current PowerBook in a thin & light PC notebook, which strongly suggests a similar power draw. Which would make perfect sense when you think of the fact the x7xx models are a series.

PowerPlay's increased effectiveness could also potentially result from development, ya think?

If I wanted to talk pure mobile speed I would be using the X800 as my example, but it is not a fair comparison because it is not designed for the segment the PowerBook is in.

Throwing the 9800 into the mix isn't irrelevant. The 9800 and the X700 are both derivative of the X800 desktop line. The only major difference between the two is the bus interface (AGP vs. PCIe).

Besides, you can't infer the same power draw just by comparing a PowerBook to a thin PC laptop. The rest of the hardware is different and isn't guaranteed to have the same power draw per component. DDR2 has a different power draw. SATA drives should as well as they even have different voltage requirements. Aren't those features in the same notebook as the X700 you're talking about?

As for

PowerPlay's increased effectiveness could also potentially result from development, ya think?

that was kind of the point -- surprised you missed that. My additional point was also that they needed to develop it to that point for the X700 -- it wasn't so required before. Which leads into what I asked about X700's power requirements. You can't really make assumptions about it -- that's why I asked if you knew any numbers. If you don't, that's fine. I'm not sure why it would require a lengthy response with only qualitative comparisions if you can't answer the question.

[Scooterboy]

I was just thinking that Apple may have held back on the GPU so they could offer an x700 or 9800 with a major update to the PowerBook. I hate to say G5, but there, I said it. I love the PowerBook, but it isn't up to par anymore. The PowerBook needs bandwidth if its going to play 1080i h.264 HD video smoothly, and it needs more than a 167 or 200 MHz FSB. It needs an 800 - 1 GHz FSB, and a 1.6 to 2 GHz G5 with a 256 MB x700 GPU.
These small incremental and infrequent updates have seen it slip further and further back compared to Apple's other Mac offerings and compared to PC laptops. The PowerBook used to be a portable PowerMac back in the G3 days. It was even faster than the PowerMac for a while. Then it became a portable iMac, and now it's a portable eMac. Sure it has better I/O and cool features, and it's faster by 0.25 GHz. That's barely faster than an eMac. And, these days the iMac is much faster than the PowerBook.
Has Apple been working on "the mother of all thermal challenges", or are they content to keep the PowerBook on G4 as long as sales don't decline too much. I won't buy another PowerBook unless it's a G5, or something equally as fast!

[Simon]

Just for the fun of it, I tried to take another shot of this KoH trailer while it's displaying the fast cuts and this time I also added my PowerBook's specs to avoid any misunderstanding.



Why oh why do I get the impression that the people dissing the PowerBook's capabilities and spreading the 720p FUD are the ones who actually don't even have one?

Bottom line: The PowerBook does it perfectly fine. Until somebody posts hard evidence that a clean 10.4.0 install on a new PowerBook can't do it, I'll assume the 'it can't do 720p whatever you say' bull is just plain old FUD.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

Comparable? An my friends call ME an Apple fan-boy

I guess you'd consider a Prius with its keyless entry, nifty LCD and Bluetooth comparable to a Ferrari, huh?

Those things are called accessories, nice, sure, but that is not the hardware.

Sure, if you have specialized demands that the PowerBook meets better then it is the better option...for you. That doesn't change what I'm saying about the state of the art.

Actually, it does.

Because FW800, Bluetooth 2.0, a scrolling trackpad, minimal bulk, and gigabit ethernet ARE state-of-the-art, as is the backlit keyboard.

These are all state-of-the-art features that are FAR more relevant to a large segment of users than a graphics card that will drop battery life to half of what it currently is. In fact, they are so much more relevant to, for example, musicians, that they take precedence even over pure audio throughput and processing power.

Just like the Prius is a FAR better car than the Ferrari in a direct comparison in every single aspect except one or two.

You can get a "state-of-the-art" Alienware or whatever, but a two-hour-or-less battery life certainly isn't "state-of-the-art" - it's patently useless, depending on your application.

YMMV, of course, and you've made it clear that your priority is on playing a video codec that may become standard one day in the fairly distant hypothetical future...

Cheers,

-chris.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

True 16:9 HD is generally 1280x720 (720p) or 1920x1080 (1080p or i). However, a lot of movies wouldn't fit properly into 1280x720. So the two options are:
...

Eug, thanks for that information. Good to know.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

It is a given that mobile PC hardware is faster than Apples right now. Period. If you wanna debate the user costs to such speed (heat, power-consumption, etc.) then you have a valid argument, but there is no doubt they are faster.

So you're agreeing with me. The fast PC notebooks out there are either fat and heavy or they offer only half the features any Apple PowerBook offers.

For all I care, the P-M might be mighty fast and X800 might make a great gaming notebook, but a majority of the people here obviously would never sacrifice Gigabit Ethernet, BT 2.0, backlit keyboards, scrolling trackpads, etc. for it. These are all state of the art features, no way we'd do without them just for a P-M or a X800.

I, as well as many other here, will gladly take the PowerBook that gives us all of these state of the art features and nice 720p playback at the same time. Something Apple understood a long time ago but still hasn't made its way to the brains of the PC notebook developers is the fact that a notebook is all about the package. Single peak specs don't mean jack if the package lacks important other features. It's a trade-off and the winner is the guy that manages to assemble the best bundle. Putting a 3.whatever GHz P4 or a X800 in a notebook, but then only offering 30min of battery life or 12lb of weight is definitely the way to lose the race.

[Eug Wanker]

There are several nicely designed Pentium M machines out there, and the Pentium M CPU is stellar, and much superior to current G4s in terms of raw performance and in terms of performance per watt. However, I still prefer the overall design of the PowerBooks. The PowerBooks are top notch machines with middle of the road CPUs. Most high end light PC laptops are more like 2nd tier designs IMO, but with top notch CPUs.

Originally Posted by Scooterboy

OK, I'm still only getting between 12 and 16 fps on these 720p trailers. Serenity, Kingdom of Heaven, 12 - 16 fps. But, I'm still on Panther. Will Tiger double my fps playing QT7 720p?

No. The results should be about the same. In truth, my Tiger 10.4 install is slightly better than my 10.3.9 install on the same hardware for this type of testing, but I wonder if it's because I had more background processes running on my 10.3.9 install, whereas my testing in 10.4 was with a pristine fresh install.

Originally Posted by bimmerphile

My 12" 1.5GHz handles it like a champ.

No it doesn't. It gets close though for 720p.

[urrl78]

According to these figures I am tending to doubt Tiger will make a big improvement in framerates.

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/

Hope someone can point me to additional tests, but people stating "It feels faster" is not enough to move me to buy Tiger. Drops in CPU and hard disk as well as OpenGL performance in the above link are telling a different story. I'm not interested in added widgets and Spotlight; I'm interested in better performance, epecially in framerates, not so much in how fast it can open an application, but how quickly it can perform tasks in that application.

[hakstooy]

I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of people who have already made up their minds. I am not getting the sense you are at all open to the possibility that while the PowerBooks have excellent designs and fantastic features, their number-crunching capabilities are falling far behind where the market currently is and certainly where it is going.

Stratus Fear:

Yes, they are both based off the R X800, but the MR X800 is the new version of the 9800, not the X700. That is my point.

To quote ATI; "MOBILITY� RADEON� X700 brings a new age of graphics technology and power management to mobile PC users seeking both breathtaking performance and true mobility...A radically new architecture based on the latest .11 micron manufacturing process delivers fast mobile performance without sacrificing battery life."

The PCIe based chips can also shut off lanes, which AGP can't do, so while the chip isn't doing much, its consumption has the potential to be much lower.

But look, believe what you want, but I am willing to put money on it being in a PowerBook if they actually release a PCIe based PowerBook this year.

analogika:

Nice assumption about the graphics card...way to fit that in with the evidence so far. Fits like a glove.

Informed assumption on H.264 as well, I suppose that the adoption by Europe's DVB, the top 6 Japanese broadcasters, the ITU-T, the 3GPP, the MISB, the ISMA, the DVD forum (for HD-DVD), etc. is all still big "maybes." And I suppose you consider Q4 of this year (when HD-DVDs come out) to be some "fairly distant hypothetical future."

Glad to know a backlit keyboard is "FAR more relevant to a large segment" of users than faster internals. I guess I live in a fantasy world.

Simon:

No, I'm not agreeing with you. I've listed 2 computers that are the same size as the PowerBook and significantly faster in every respect, with comparable batter life.

Exactly what makes cutting-edge internals incompatible with BT 2, scrolling trackpads, etc?

Let's do a history lesson, shall we? In late 2002, right before the current PowerBooks came out, the TiBook had a G4 at 1 GHz, the PowerMac had dual G4s at 1.25 GHz. The PowerBooks now have a G4 at 1.67 GHz, and the PowerMacs have dual G5s at 2.7 GHz. More than two and a half years later, the PowerBooks are still using the older chip, running only 67% faster, while the PowerMac is running a new chip, running 116% faster.

Is it perhaps possible the line is stagnating?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

No, I'm not agreeing with you. I've listed 2 computers that are the same size as the PowerBook and significantly faster in every respect, with comparable batter life.

But they lack other state of the art features people here won't want to be without. No go.

Exactly what makes cutting-edge internals incompatible with BT 2, scrolling trackpads, etc?

Nothing at all. It's just that no PC manufacturer manages to put these 'cutting edge internals' into a package that's as small, light, sexy and full-featured as the PowerBook. I'll give you the short form to make it crystal clear: I could care less about the additional speed of any PC notebook if it can't deliver Gb Ethernet, BT2, APX, Scrolling TP, Backlit KB, 4h battery, etc.

And regarding the history lesson, I have one word: Bull. Whose notebooks still offer ridiculously outdated and useless ports like RS-232, PS/2 and parallel? Apples? LOL.

[hakstooy]

Sigh...now I know why Mac users get the rap of being superficial. Change the surface and that's all they see.

[Simon]

Tell ya what, if you think Gb Ethernet, BT2, APX, Scrolling TP, Backlit KB, 4h battery, etc. is all just 'surface', please, do yourself a favor and get a PC notebook. I'm sure you'll be lot happier.